Bootsma Martin C J, Ferguson Neil M
Mathematical Institute, Faculty of Sciences, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 6, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1;104(18):7588-93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611071104. Epub 2007 Apr 6.
During the 1918 influenza pandemic, the U.S., unlike Europe, put considerable effort into public health interventions. There was also more geographic variation in the autumn wave of the pandemic in the U.S. compared with Europe, with some cities seeing only a single large peak in mortality and others seeing double-peaked epidemics. Here we examine whether differences in the public health measures adopted by different cities can explain the variation in epidemic patterns and overall mortality observed. We show that city-specific per-capita excess mortality in 1918 was significantly correlated with 1917 per-capita mortality, indicating some intrinsic variation in overall mortality, perhaps related to sociodemographic factors. In the subset of 23 cities for which we had partial data on the timing of interventions, an even stronger correlation was found between excess mortality and how early in the epidemic interventions were introduced. We then fitted an epidemic model to weekly mortality in 16 cities with nearly complete intervention-timing data and estimated the impact of interventions. The model reproduced the observed epidemic patterns well. In line with theoretical arguments, we found the time-limited interventions used reduced total mortality only moderately (perhaps 10-30%), and that the impact was often very limited because of interventions being introduced too late and lifted too early. San Francisco, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Kansas City had the most effective interventions, reducing transmission rates by up to 30-50%. Our analysis also suggests that individuals reactively reduced their contact rates in response to high levels of mortality during the pandemic.
在1918年流感大流行期间,与欧洲不同,美国在公共卫生干预方面投入了大量精力。与欧洲相比,美国大流行秋季波在地理上的差异也更大,一些城市仅出现一个死亡高峰,而其他城市则出现双高峰疫情。在此,我们研究不同城市所采取的公共卫生措施差异是否能够解释所观察到的疫情模式和总体死亡率的变化。我们发现,1918年特定城市的人均超额死亡率与1917年人均死亡率显著相关,这表明总体死亡率存在一些内在差异,可能与社会人口因素有关。在我们掌握干预时间部分数据的23个城市子集中,超额死亡率与干预措施在疫情中引入的早晚之间存在更强的相关性。然后,我们为16个拥有近乎完整干预时间数据的城市的每周死亡率拟合了一个疫情模型,并估计了干预措施的影响。该模型很好地再现了所观察到的疫情模式。与理论观点一致,我们发现所采用的限时干预措施仅适度降低了总死亡率(可能为10%-30%),而且由于干预措施引入过晚且解除过早,其影响往往非常有限。旧金山、圣路易斯、密尔沃基和堪萨斯城的干预措施最为有效,将传播率降低了30%-50%。我们的分析还表明,在大流行期间,个人会因高死亡率而被动降低接触率。